On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@...> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 08:28:27 +0530
> "Nirbheek Chauhan" <nirbheek.chauhan@...> wrote:
>> Fact: It can't be fixed easily and/or in a reasonable time-frame. Else
>> someone would've done it -- heck you could've fixed it.
>
> Untrue. The amount of effort that's been wasted messing around with
> as-needed could easily have been directed to fixing the root cause
> instead. Debian have already done most of the work.

And the time you just wasted spewing rhetoric on this thread? Since
you have such a deep understanding of everything, couldn't you have
done the rest of the work, posted it here and instantly convinced
everyone?

>> Fact: It works. Unlike your vapour-proposal to "fix libtool".
>
> But it doesn't work. And fixing libtool isn't vapour. Read the Debian
> patch.

Fixing libtool isn't vapour, neither is the debian patch, but your
plan/proposal to do is non-existant. You're just saying "Do this
because I say you should, I don't know how, but you should. Oh, and if
you don't you're all idiots".

>> Fact: Breakages are rare, code which causes it is discouraged anyway,
>> and is fixable in any case. We're not a standards organisation.
>
> You seriously think Gentoo has the manpower to go around making
> unnecessary changes to upstream code? And there's nothing in the C++
> standard discouraging static initialisation.

The tracker bug (bug 129413) seems to say otherwise.

>> Fact: It hasn't been done forever, and won't be done anytime soon.
>
> And the Debian patch is...?

Useless unless it's complete. As I said above, fix it and convince us.
Show us how wrong we are. We'll be glad and grateful. Don't whine
about it and waste everyone's time and energy.


-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list